The Functional Origin of Oral Word Production Deficits in the Logopenic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Oral word production (OWP) deficits are prominent in the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA); however, their functional origin remains unclear. Some studies suggest a lexical, post-lexical, or even a combined functional origin of these deficits. The aim of the present study was to synthesize and analyze the information on the functional origin of the OWP deficits in patients with lvPPA. METHODS: A quantitative systematic literature review was carried out using four databases: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, and PubMed. Fourteen studies, including a total of 243 patients with lvPPA, and reporting results on picture naming and/or word and/or pseudoword repetition, were selected. RESULTS: The overall findings of this review highlighted that two main functional origins appear to explain the OWP deficits in lvPPA: a lexical impairment affecting lexical processing and a post-lexical impairment affecting phonological short-term memory. Interestingly, the possibility of a third functional origin, affecting the semantic processing level, was also suggested by some studies. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the presence of different functional origins of OWP in this population may be explained, at least partially, by the diversity of assessment tasks used in studies and the varied manipulation and control of psycholinguistic properties of words (e.g., frequency, length), as well as the various interpretations and analyses of the participants' errors. Further studies are needed to substantiate these findings by examining all the components involved in OWP, carefully manipulating the psycholinguistic properties and qualitatively analyzing the errors made by lvPPA participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".